9 comments:

Extremely interesting Aangirfan, thanks. The link ti the New Statesman didn't seem to work, but I found the article. http://www.newstatesman.com/node/143840. I couldn't find any article that related to Mr. Manning's meeting at the State Department prior to September 11th, 2001 unfortunately as that link did not seem to work either.

This is exactly what I was told about, and I was told that '13 men' control it all from the top (whether these '13 men' are contained within the list or not)...

when you look at the names, you realise their 'Western Civilisation', their real people, who appear in public and ARE human (not shapeshifitng lizards)... these people can be got at! People like Putin and numerous other powerful world leaders are not listed...

You have to remember though, Dr John Coleman is former MI6 himself (once MI6, always MI6)

I was in a pub in westminster the other night - just near Vauxhall Bridge - over hearing some guys who were talking about having a go getting even with all these criminals the first opportunity they get. Mi5 and Mi6 are close by. I wonder if they can protect those buildings from thousands and thousands of angry people?? I also wonder where those people would go after they have finished there: Buck House? Parliament? Golders Green? Tel Aviv?

Following on from Shirlz above, I have to say that 300 is far too unwieldy a number to run... well, anything really. Without disputing the existence of the 300 I think it would make more sense to view them as a brains trust kind of thing. A proper committee is only ever going to be a dozen or so people. And even then those dozen will have a chairman or president, someone to act as first amongst equals, a final arbiter.

The brains trust of 300 is not without function. I suspect it's there to bash out ideas which the committee will then consider or to otherwise act as a sounding board for ideas the committee has already. I expect it also exists in order to have everyone on board, which is to say, ensure that those people who are actually going to execute the committee's programmes feel like they're having an input and are appreciated.

But as for deciding what gets done there's no way you'd leave that in the hands of hundreds of people. I'd call it a recipe of how not to get things done.

Also I'm entirely convinced we're ruled by some variety of bloodline aristocracy. There is no way known that the top level of this thing functions on purely meritocratic principles. The 300, such as it is, smells of meritocracy to me. They cannot be the top level.

As to whether the dozen in the top steering committee (as it were) are also amongst the 300 is unknowable. I expect some are. I also expect some would be entirely unknown to pretty much everyone, members of the 300 included. There are many ways to maintain anonymity.